alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6801]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-200-024]


Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 2, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC 
(REX) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 22, to be effective April 3, 
2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0a6a5b2a3af8e8c898e85b39590908f9294a086859283ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6801 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH 31,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                      0000097196
<NAME>                           SOFTNET SYSTEMS INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                             63
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                      378
<INVENTORY>                                     4,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,170
<PP&E>                                          3,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,539
<BONDS>                                        12,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       33,826
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,664
<SALES>                                        20,952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20,952
<CGS>                                          12,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   538
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               538
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-2 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby
certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 25, 2010, among Santander Drive Auto
Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-2 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my
supervision.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period
that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 30, 2012
Before the First Division,

May 15, 1946

No. 51112.

#### Protests 85857-K, etc., of DeLuxe Saddlery Co., Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6163
TYRONE JAVELLE BOWENS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00994-TSE-BRP) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: August 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Javelle Bowens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tyrone Javelle Bowens, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bowens v. Stansberry , No. 1:07-cv-00994-TSEBRP (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2007) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2013 (the Report) of Full Circle Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William E. Vastardis, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ William E. Vastardis Name:  William E. Vastardis Date:    September 12, 2013
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v PAUL F. HELFRICK, Jr., Private E-2, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 221, 25 CMR 483

No. 11,079

Decided May 2, 1958

*Major Edward Fenig*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused pleaded guilty to a number of charges in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specification 1 of Charge I alleges an unauthorized absence from the company area from May 5 to May 11, 1957. Specification 1 of Charge III alleges a breach of restriction on the same day from the same area. Specification 3 of Charge I sets out a similar absence from the company area on July 20, while specification 2, Charge III, alleges a breach of restriction on that day from the same area. The accused contends that the charges of misconduct on each day are not separately punishable. See United States v Modesett, 9 USCMA 152, 25 CMR 414.

From the allegations in the specifications it cannot unqualifiedly be said that the evidence in regard to the breach of restriction also establishes the unauthorized absence. No evidence was presented at the trial. It is entirely possible that a breach of restriction was *222committed before the initiation of the absence. In fact, a pretrial statement by the accused, which is included in the allied papers as part of the Article 32 investigation, shows that on May 5, the accused left the company area without authority, returned to it for several hours, and then again departed. The statement, therefore, shows that the May offenses are separate. The same situation is possible in regard to the July 20th charges. But, even if they fall within our decision in the *Modesett*case, the accused was not harmed by the duplication.

The law officer instructed the court-martial that the maximum period of confinement was four years and two months. If the July charges are dupli-cative, the maximum is four years and one month. The court imposed a sentence which included confinement for one year and six months, and this period was reduced by the convening authority and again by the board of review. The possibility that the one month difference in the maximum sentence affected the judgment of any of the sentencing authorities “is too slight to justify a remand of the case.” United States v Best, 6 USCMA 39, 46, 19 CMR 165.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.

Latimer, Judge

(concurring):

I concur for the reason set forth in United States v Woolley, 8 USCMA 655, 25 CMR 159.
Exhibit 99.4  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with this Annual Report of Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Rostowsky, Principal Financial Officer of Sprott Asset Management LP, the Manager of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.  This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.  Date: March 31, 2014   /s/   STEVEN ROSTOWSKYSteven   RostowskyPrincipal   Financial Officer
No. 41903.

#### Protests 890315-G, etc., of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40480 the noisemakers in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 1 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 2 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 3 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 4 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 5 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 6 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 7 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 8 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 9 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 10 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 11 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 12 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00590-GLF-EPD Doc #: 136 Filed: 03/19/14 Page: 13 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T11:36:16-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 46269.

#### Protests 832577-G, etc., of Eric Wedemeyer (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 39852 and 38549 the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1029

EMMANUEL AGBARA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, (PGCPS); DR. MONICA 

GOLDSON, CEO PGCPS; KENMOOR EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT 

CENTER, (KECDC); ALMA EZELL-LAWSON, Principal (KECDC); MS. HAM, 

(Trice), Registrar of KECDC; MS. LISA LAMAR, Special Education Coordinator 

(KECDC); MS. EVELYN O. OKOJI; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE 

GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:20-cv-00306-TJS)

Submitted: March 1, 2022 Decided: March 8, 2022

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Agbara, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, Kambon Raymond Williams, 

PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Ross Philip McSweeney, GROOM LAW 

GROUP, CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1029 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/08/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Agbara appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions 

to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Agbara v. Prince George’s Cnty. Pub. 

Schs., No. 8:20-cv-00306-TJS (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2020). We grant Agbara’s motion for an 

extension of time to file his reply and grant Evelyn O. Okoji’s motion to strike portions of 

Agbara’s brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1029 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/08/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2007279EN.01000101.xml

| 22.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 November 2007

(2007/C 279/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4814 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 160,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4544 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3170 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6379 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 92,07 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0415 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,781 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 256,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6985 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,6895 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5421 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,445 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7861 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6952 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4639 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,5250 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9601 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1516 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 376,52 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,0942 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,9787 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3360 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 932,57 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0108 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,100 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,0650 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,615 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4814

JPY

Japanese yen

160,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4544

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71970

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3170

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6379

ISK

Iceland króna

92,07

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0415

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

26,781

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

256,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6985

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,6895

RON

Romanian leu

3,5421

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,445

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7861

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6952

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4639

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,5250

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9601

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1516

KRW

South Korean won

1 376,52

ZAR

South African rand

10,0942

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,9787

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3360

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 932,57

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0108

PHP

Philippine peso

64,100

RUB

Russian rouble

36,0650

THB

Thai baht

46,615

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2007174EN.01000201.xml

| 27.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 July 2007

(2007/C 174/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3722 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 164,52 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4413 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67080 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2266 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6607 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 82,79 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9760 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,124 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,04 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6969 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8060 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,1436 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,353 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7518 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5561 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4396 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7372 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7262 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0790 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 260,02 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5685 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3814 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2905 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 539,16 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7190 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,174 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,9750 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,651 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3722

JPY

Japanese yen

164,52

DKK

Danish krone

7,4413

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67080

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2266

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6607

ISK

Iceland króna

82,79

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9760

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

28,124

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,04

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6969

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8060

RON

Romanian leu

3,1436

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,353

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7518

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5561

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4396

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7372

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7262

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0790

KRW

South Korean won

1 260,02

ZAR

South African rand

9,5685

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3814

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2905

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 539,16

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7190

PHP

Philippine peso

62,174

RUB

Russian rouble

34,9750

THB

Thai baht

40,651

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0075 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-104-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N1, AS-365N2 and 

AS 365 N3 Helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 44 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended determine whether a crack exists in certain tail rotor 

hubs.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $0

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

$425, assuming an average of 5 inspections per 

year. 

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $425

Total US Fleet Cost $18,700

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELODY GARNER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-676

Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge King

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

On July 6, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended

that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that the action

be dismissed. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 19. Although the

parties were advised of their right to object to the recommendation and

of the consequences of their failure to do so, there has nevertheless

been no objection.

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 19, is ADOPTED AND

AFFIRMED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the action

is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant

to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Date: July 27, 2012 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cv-00676-JLG-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/27/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>